"The historical tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants."

That's the crux of it. The Founders dealt with drunk militiamen the same way we'd handle it at a range today — you're impaired, you don't shoot. You sober up, you're back. Status-based prohibition is a different animal entirely, and apparently one without much historical backing.

"Rather than making a case that marijuana specifically correlates with firearms violence, the brief notes the government leans heavily on incidents involving meth, heroin, PCP, and Quaaludes."

That's not legal reasoning — that's guilt by association with a completely different drug class. If that kind of argument held up at the LGS counter, we'd never sell anything to anyone.

The practical reality right now: if you have a medical card in Idaho or anywhere else, you're a prohibited person under federal law. No gun purchases, no ammo, no NFA items — nothing. That situation affects more people than most realize, especially as more states legalize.

Have you had conversations at your local FFL or range about how this affects buyers or members — whether it's coming up more often on 4473s or membership applications?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett